The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[Skinsinparadise]

24 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But it goes against the "big name" splash you keep calling for. Multiple studs is one thing, but at what cost.

 

We covered this in the FA thread.   Since, I don't have much time in the moment. Got to run in a sec.   I'll just say it this way.  I have my opinions on the current roster.  I have my opinions on specific FAs and how they complement or not the unit. 

 

And its all about philosophy for me.  My opinion of Bruce and the FO has ZERO to do of what I think about each player transaction.  My opinions typically come before the action.  The only way Bruce is involved is if something doesn't feel right to me do I give him the benefit of the doubt or not.  Having said that based on what's been said, I don't think my position clashes at all with Bruce-the FO as for the D line in particular.  I think my position is likely in flow with it.  Will see.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 This is less about "FA" and more about Bruce's "strategy".

 

You are repeating a point I made on the thread.  So of course I agree.

 

24 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

History shows that he, Gruden and the coaches are into developing players.

 

Versus other teams who aren't into developing players?  Which team isn't into it?    Building a team isn't IMO about just one primary thing.

 

24 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Well, I wouldn't put it so simple. Guys get better. Our coaching staff has the ability to develop guys. So why not let them work their way up the roster like most other teams do, like we did at other positions?

 

If the Vikings can develop all those draft picks in house on defense. And, Zimmer is a brilliant defensive mind and teacher by many accounts.  So why bother with signings guys like L. Joseph or S. Richardson?  Elway and Shanny are QB gurus so just stay out of their way and they will find a QB and develop one.

 

My point is your point comes off to me a bit overly simplistic and one dimensional.  I think there is something to "talent" where its not all about the molding clay.  Like most things in life.  "balance".  

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

26 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

My whole thing (in a lot of these conversations we've had, be it Kirk, Scot or this Bruce philosophy stuff) is that there is a lot of stuff that we (as fans) do not know. We don't know how much Hosley practicing well influenced them thinking they could get by without Fuller (Hoffman did suggest it though). Francis played 11, 25, 26, 29, 26 and 44 snaps in each of the last 6 games. How impressed were coaches with his play? What about Mbu or Scandrick? They've seen these guys in practice and have more insight on whether they can improve the roster. Could one be a future plug up the middle? How long did it take Chris Baker to make a roster? Denver in 2009, Miami in 2010, Redskins in 2011, didn't make a roster until 2012. He was supposed to be a NT, something Chris Cooley was upset about them not doing until when they finally did it and it wasn't his position.

 

 

To me though all this if anything more likely backs my point.   Doug and the beat reporters (all of them) are practically screaming D line.   The question becomes what do they do and when they do it.  

[skins island connection]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We covered this in the FA thread.   Since, I don't have much time in the moment. Got to run in a sec.   I'll just say it this way.  I have my opinions on the current roster.  I have my opinions on specific FAs and how they complement or not the unit. 

 

And its all about philosophy for me.  My opinion of Bruce and the FO has ZERO to do of what I think about each player transaction.  My opinions typically come before the action.  The only way Bruce is involved is if something doesn't feel right to me do I give him the benefit of the doubt or not.  Having said that based on what's been said, I don't think my position clashes at all with Bruce-the FO as for the D line in particular.  I think my position is likely in flow with it.  Will see.

 

 

 

You are repeating a point I made on the thread.  So of course I agree.

 

 

Versus other teams who aren't into developing players?  Which team isn't into it?    Building a team isn't IMO about just one primary thing.

 

 

If the Vikings can develop all those draft picks in house on defense. And, Zimmer is a brilliant defensive mind and teacher by many accounts.  So why bother with signings guys like L. Joseph or S. Richardson?  Elway and Shanny are QB gurus so just stay out of their way and they will find a QB and develop one.

 

My point is your point comes off to me a bit overly simplistic and one dimensional.  I think there is something to "talent" where its not all about the molding clay.  Like most things in life.  "balance".        

 

 Glad to see someone else agreeing to my belief, in a way.

 

Its always been my belief that good coaches make/mold good players, while some have said good players make/mold good coaches.

Gibbs was well-known for getting the most out of a player. He and his assistants utilized a player's best abilities and developed schemes to fit them. He made players believe in him and his system.

 

Now, having an athletic or gifted player helps a coach out immensely, and at times it creates a belief by the media that the coach is a great coach; but when that player is gone, suddenly that very same coach turns in a mediocre season at best, and in some cases is fired, leaving their fans and others wondering 'what happened'?'

 

Today's NFL is much different than it was, say, in the 80's. Its a "win now" league, where players are thrown onto the field without adequate coaching/experience, and usually doesn't do as well as expected. That player is yanked and replaced by someone else, and the cycle starts. After so many tries, if it doesn't get better, the coach is let go.

Gibbs would get a young QB and conceal him, all the while training him and letting experience and maturity run their course, then he is prepared even though he doesn't have actual game experience. Rypien was a prime example of this.

I know i'll be roasted for this, but I actually believe that Patrick Ramsey would have been a very good if not great QB had he been given more of a chance. Dude had an incredible arm, just needed to learn about control and field vision, and he could have changed the Redskins fortune during those years. But a crappy o-line and impatience took their toll on him, and he was replaced.

 

Sorry about the long drawn-out yapping, but back to the point, good coaching creates great players.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 hours ago, skins island connection said:

 

 

Sorry about the long drawn-out yapping, but back to the point, good coaching creates great players.

 

 

My point is no doubt.  But sometimes mega talent is mega talent.  Can Mike Zimmer turn AJ Francis into Sheldon Richardson?  Probably not.   So I was using the Vikings as an example since they've developed good talent in house AND if a mega talented defensive player is available in FA -- they did that too.

 

Wade Phillips according to reports looked at our roster in 2017 and said sorry no thanks, I'll do the Rams where I have Aaron Donald, etc.  I recall a report indicated he was concerned about the lack of talent on the roster.   Even though Wade is supposedly legendary as a teacher.

 

So my point is its not just about one thing. (not saying you said otherwise, just expounding on my point)  Where its a choice between lets develop our guys in house or the opposite extreme of lets import most of our talent.  You are unlikely be able to mold one of your in house projects into Aaron Donald.  But at the same time, you can develop a guy with some talent into a player and turn them into being than the currently are.

 

Hence my Karate Kid balance reference.   

[Thinking Skins]

23 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If the Vikings can develop all those draft picks in house on defense. And, Zimmer is a brilliant defensive mind and teacher by many accounts.  So why bother with signings guys like L. Joseph or S. Richardson?  Elway and Shanny are QB gurus so just stay out of their way and they will find a QB and develop one.

 

My point is your point comes off to me a bit overly simplistic and one dimensional.  I think there is something to "talent" where its not all about the molding clay.  Like most things in life.  "balance".  

The Vikings are doing it now based on a deep playoff run and probably the thought that they're close so why not just add the missing pieces? I don't think we are nearly that close, but we've seen other teams do this with both success and failure, more failures come to mind but I know I focus on that. But I don't think Bruce would be a fan of Minnesota or The Rams approach to free agency either. 

 

Carlos Rogers had a quote about the Redskins (Vinny) way being to develop young players then when their contracts expired, go out in free agency and sign their replacement. 

 

Phillips is one guy, a great defensive mind but still one guy. And his perspective is an outside one, so I'm doubtful he had any knowledge about Matt Ioannidis or Lanier and the progress they'd make. Or Fuller. Would he have been a draft guy or a free agency guy? I don't know, but i think they'd have lost some progress by replacing everybody just for the sake of it. 

 

Simple or not, there is value in this philosophy. It's why teams have done it for years, decades even. Gibbs is heralded around here for his coaching, but also for developing players that Bobby Betherd drafted. Even before Snyder, when we lost our edge with drafting guys, we correspondingly started sucking. 

 

Other teams are trying this very philosophy for, they're just not good at it. Vinny tried it in 2008 when we had 10 picks but they were bad picks and we panicked and traded for Jason Taylor. Cleveland tried it when they drafted like 5 wrs 2 years ago but they didn't pan out. Or QBs in Cleveland. These kind of mistakes make teams panic and resort to overpaying in free agency. 

 

But we've been trying to model this franchise after the Packers, Steelers and Ravens, three of the most successful franchises this millennium. Two of who have even done it without a legit QB for half the time. 

 

You say it's about balance but I'm saying it's an old saying (proverb) about "keeping up with the Joneses" or "coveting your neighbors goods" or "everything that glitters ain't gold". I can keep going. These are life lessons that some of us old heads have had to learn through life. Hopefully Bruce was able to teach Snyder this because I've rarely seen free agents turn a franchise around, but good drafts and rookie contracts seems like the tried and true way. 

 

But the media and fans don't like that because who gets excited about a developing 5th rounder or a UDFA? That's not a news story or something to sell radio ads. But I bet we wish we had signed Michael Pierce 2 years ago. 

[Skinsinparadise]

36 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

The Vikings are doing it now based on a deep playoff run and probably the thought that they're close so why not just add the missing pieces? I

 

Ironically, I personally agree with you that they aren't that close.  But trading for a 34 year old QB coupled with just about every beat guy saying when they talk to their sources with the FO they are told they think they are really close...makes me think they indeed believe they are close.

 

But who knows?  But if they truly really think they are that close -- they need to make a bold move or two.  But again I think it might be coming.   Like I said, I think my point here is consistent as opposed to being at odds with what the FO is thinking -- it least judging by Doug and things the beat guys say they hear.  But who knows will see.

 

36 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Phillips is one guy, a great defensive mind but still one guy. And his perspective is an outside one, so I'm doubtful he had any knowledge about Matt Ioannidis or Lanier and the progress they'd make. Or Fuller. Would he have been a draft guy or a free agency guy? I don't know, but i think they'd have lost some progress by replacing everybody just for the sake of it. 

 

 

I think this is a false choice.  That's my point about "balance".  I like developing talent.  I also like acquiring talent.  And my take on FA is contingent on position and current state of the team -- I don't think you need to be a slave to a specific song but instead you have multiple songs that you can tap into depending on context. 

 

36 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Gibbs is heralded around here for his coaching, but also for developing players that Bobby Betherd drafted. Even before Snyder, when we lost our edge with drafting guys, we correspondingly started sucking. 

 

 

Ironically, I recall Gibbs specifically saying you can't teach someone to be Charles Mann. He said something to the effect of Charles Mann is gifted from god -- incredible speed, strength, smarts -- all unique.    Again, IMO false choice when we go from one extreme point to another.  You develop guys but you also go get some GIFTED players.  Gibbs couldn't teach D. Green to run 4.25.  He couldn't make Manley run 4.5.     He couldn't coach up Riggins' combination of power and vision.

 

Yeah there are guys of course that you can maximize but talent is talent.  You need to play both cards -- like Beathard did, go get yourself a beast of player in a trade like W. Marshall and also develop a guy like Joe Jacoby.  Do both.

 

36 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

You say it's about balance but I'm saying it's an old saying (proverb) about "keeping up with the Joneses" or "coveting your neighbors goods" or "everything that glitters ain't gold". I can keep going. These are life lessons that some of us old heads have had to learn through life.

 

I get your point.  And good discussion.  But I think you might be overreacting to the Vinny era.  We can't trust this FO to shop at times at Tiffany's without worrying they will make a Vinny style blunder or they might get addicted to the process and buy too much? 

 

Me wanting Richardson for example isn't a reaction to being jealous of Minny.  I wanted him for 2 years.  Heck Scot told me directly they tried to trade for him in 2016.  But where I am talking about balance and nuance refers to what I think of specific positions.  The D line is a position where I think that a beast of a player can make a major impact and I am willing to be more aggressive at that spot versus other spots.  I just don't think you are coaching up McClain or whomever to be Sheldon Richardson.   But if you want to develop Holsey to be your slot CB, ok I can endorse that ride.  

[Thinking Skins]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Me wanting Richardson for example isn't a reaction to being jealous of Minny.  I wanted him for 2 years.  Heck Scot told me directly they tried to trade for him in 2016.  But where I am talking about balance and nuance refers to what I think of specific positions.  The D line is a position where I think that a beast of a player can make a major impact and I am willing to be more aggressive at that spot versus other spots.  I just don't think you are coaching up McClain or whomever to be Sheldon Richardson.   But if you want to develop Holsey to be your slot CB, ok I can endorse that ride.  

No, but you do find them. We probably made a mistake trading down when Dallas got Lawrence and we got Murphy and Long or Moses. It doesn't mean we go after Lawrence now. It just means that we have to be better next time. 

 

Somebody drafted Mann, Green, Hankins, etc. What led to those picks and how can we replicate it? That's how we can be successful. We have to improve our scouting department and they've got to improve as scouts. We are not too good at finding DL talent, which means we have had problems there. Baltimore has had problems finding help at WR. Them signing Boldin helped them win a SB. But they've also signed a bunch of no names to big deals that have hurt them and their record has been the same. 

 

WR is not DL, but Baltimore knows how to scout DL, so much so that they've had a number of low rounders and Udfa come in and excel. What are they doing right? How can we replicate that? Does Tomsula know how to scout DL? Does Gruden? Does Allen? Because signing the big names will provide a temporary stop gap but unless we can learn to have 3 or 4 quality guys competing for the lady roster spot, and getting picked up by other teams (look at our back up C and G in the last two preseasons), that position will still be a weakness. I'm not an advocate of McClain or McGee except that they're on the roster so why not keep the best guys,  but I'd rather find younger cheaper talent who have the potential to be a dominant force. 

[Skinsinparadise]

35 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

No, but you do find them. We probably made a mistake trading down when Dallas got Lawrence and we got Murphy and Long or Moses. It doesn't mean we go after Lawrence now. It just means that we have to be better next time. 

 

Somebody drafted Mann, Green, Hankins, etc. What led to those picks and how can we replicate it? That's how we can be successful. We have to improve our scouting department and they've got to improve as scouts. We are not too good at finding DL talent, which means we have had problems there. Baltimore has had problems finding help at WR. Them signing Boldin helped them win a SB. But they've also signed a bunch of no names to big deals that have hurt them and their record has been the same. 

 

You mentioned the Steelers before, talk about a team that can scout offensive talent in particular -- its insane their hit rate.   We are lucky to sniff occasional success at RB and WR in the draft whereas they just pull off hit after hit.  And they don't only get good talent but they find monster level players in the process. That's one thing this FO hasn't been good at IMO on the aggregate, finding those killer A level guys.    If Jordan Reed could stay healthy he'd be one.  Ditto Trent.

 

Personally I think this FO isn't awful and isn't great at finding talent thus far.  If they drafted like the Steelers, I'd be ok with them being conservative in FA.  But they don't.  Maybe that will change, will see. 

 

The Patriots aren't always great at finding talent in the draft.  They are OK at it.  But they go up and down in the draft -- procure picks, trade for players.  Sign guys.  They take chances and enough risks pay off. 

 

Losing Kirk for a late third rounder in 2019 because Bruce wanted to win in 2017.  Yuck.  Bill Belichick and Howie Roseman get bounties for their players at times.   They are thinking ahead, they are being creative.   They seem a step or two ahead in how they think versus our FO.  

 

Our FO IMO isn't forward thinking enough.  Yes, they understand how to value players better than Vinny.  And they don't trade away picks like candy like Vinny did but they still trade away too much IMO. 

 

But back to your point, I think its insightful to highlight strengths and weaknesses of a FO like you did.  Cooley-Sheehan's theory is they know their pro scouting isn't hot but they trust their college scouting. That would be strange to me that the FO accedes they aren't good at something -- I'd presume if they did they'd fix it.   But I get their point.

 

Casserly wasn't oddly good with his first rounders but was oddly good with late rounders, especially speed rushers.  Cerrato was good at hitting on the first rounders but stunk at the late rounds.   This new FO is perhaps too early to judge -- Scott Campbell has been the key guy for a long time, his drafts to me have been very average.  This one coming up looks to be the first Scot-Scott free draft in a long time with Kyle calling the shots.  Will see.   I am looking forward to it because while I haven't hated Scott Campbell's drafts, I haven't been impressed either -- again very average.  Granted there have been other chefs in the kitchen during those years. 

 

[Thinking Skins]

@Skinsinparadise, I agree with just about everything you said. I kinda take Bruce at his word in 2014 when he said "we've been winning off the field, but we've got to start winning on the field" and he talked about how things needed to change. After that he mentored that he'd do whatever it took to change things. There was a quote about mowing the lawn if he needed to. Afterwards he consults Scot for his best draft, hires Scot, fires Scot, promotes Doug, Eric and Kyle, etc. These may not be the major changes people have called for but they are changes and in the aggregate, they seem to be doing what I mention which is trying to address their weaknesses and promoting their strengths.

 

But still if they aren't, this is what they should be doing. Who are the best scouts for defensive linemen and what will it take to bring them here? Who are the other up and coming names in scouting that are on expiring contracts or whose team just fired the GM? I've been in favor of revamping our scouting for years and it seems we finally have something closer to a good department. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I’ve read through a lot of the back-and forth in the last few pages, and I congratulate @Skinsinparadise And @Thinking Skins on a well reasoned and well thought out discussion. 

 

But strip it to to its core: Bruce is an average GM, who has set up an average scouting department, hired an average coach, signed average players, with average results. 

 

Its all average.  And since nothing has substantially changed this year except the QB, I’m betting on average results again.

 

And a lot of excuses for hard schedule and Jordan Reed being hurt (again.) Btw, Trent, Moses, Reed and CT will not participate in the early part of the off-season program as they recover.  

 

I just hope that if things end at the extraordinarily predictable 8-8, Bruce and his entire cast of average Tampa connections is shown the door.

 

 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I just hope that of thos thing ends at the extrozinarily predictable 8-8, Bruce and his entire cast of average Tampa connections is shown the door.

 

I agree with everything you said except for this.  I don't want us to suck, I just want us to play better and win more games.  If Bruce can't make that happen, he needs to go.  This is his last chance with me, I've really wanted to give him benefit of the doubt because it was better then Vinny.  But I started a thread not too long ago, and it shows not much of an improvement when you really look at it.

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I agree with everything you said except for this.  I don't want us to suck, I just want us to play better and win more games.  If Bruce can't make that happen, he needs to go.  This is his last chance with me, I've really wanted to give him benefit of the doubt because it was better then Vinny.  But I started a thread not too long ago, and it shows not much of an improvement when you really look at it.

what do you disagree with?

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

what do you disagree with?

Hoping we go .500 so it costs Bruce his job. I'm not sure if you really meant that, but I want us to do well this year, and if that doesn't happen, I want him to go.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Hoping we go .500 so it costs Bruce his job. I'm not sure if you really meant that, but I want us to do well this year, and if that doesn't happen, I want him to go.  

I didn’t say that.  I said that I hope IF we go 8-8, he’s gone.  

 

 

[Renegade7]

Just now, Voice_of_Reason said:

I didn’t say that.  I said that I hope IF we go 8-8, he’s gone.  

 

 

K, think I just misunderstood what you were sayin then.  I agree with you, we don't make the playoffs in 2018, he's dead to me.

[Burgold]

Just heard on the radio that Bruce Allen is taking an unspecified leave of absence and checking himself into Betty Ford to deal with some kind of substance abuse issue. Probably alcohol. Any one have details?

 

I know no one likes him, but the timing sucks this close to the draft. I hope Williams and Campbell are up to the task.

[joeken24]

14 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Just heard on the radio that Bruce Allen is taking an unspecified leave of absence and checking himself into Betty Ford to deal with some kind of substance abuse issue. Probably alcohol. Any one have details?

 

I know no one likes him, but the timing sucks this close to the draft. I hope Williams and Campbell are up to the task.

April fools to you too.

[joeken24]

Extremeskins at its best....

 

This team will always have a villain and a guy that just seems to walk on water.

Right now its Bruce (villain) and Kirk (pillar of light).

 

If Bruce takes a leave of absence for substance abuse (as Burgold put it. And BTW, nice try)

 

Or if his alter ego gets the boot.

 

There will be another evil one that crawls out of the shadows at Redskins park.

 

Oh but wait......if the Redskins start winning. Then what?

[Wildbunny]

3 hours ago, Burgold said:

Just heard on the radio that Bruce Allen is taking an unspecified leave of absence and checking himself into Betty Ford to deal with some kind of substance abuse issue. Probably alcohol. Any one have details?

 

I know no one likes him, but the timing sucks this close to the draft. I hope Williams and Campbell are up to the task.

I believe a drive under influence arrest would have been more credible.

 

Considering how they drink at Redskins Park...

 

Btw, as Ian Cummings said it, and you can read it in BHRBN, the Redskins are the April's fool that never stops in fact.

 

No need to do some, WE ARE the April's Fools of the NFL all year long.

[Rufus T Firefly]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Ironically, I personally agree with you that they aren't that close.  But trading for a 34 year old QB coupled with just about every beat guy saying when they talk to their sources with the FO they are told they think they are really close...makes me think they indeed believe they are close.

 

But who knows?  But if they truly really think they are that close -- they need to make a bold move or two.  But again I think it might be coming.   Like I said, I think my point here is consistent as opposed to being at odds with what the FO is thinking -- it least judging by Doug and things the beat guys say they hear.  But who knows will see.

The problem is what kind of bold move could happen. While people keep saying Bruce is just being cheap, the fact is we don't have much cap to work with. Sure, we could still fit in a Hankins (depending on the price tag). But we're already up against the cap in 2019, and signing Hankins, or anyone else,  makes that even more of a challenge. For as much as it seems obvious to me that Bruce puts saving his job as the priority over what is best for his team, he also isn't dumb enough to save it fro one year and then create a catastrophe next.

 

It makes me wonder, if there is to be some kind of dramatic move to "go for it" in 2018, if that might not be a trade of future draft picks. That would make more sense, in the vein of what's best for Bruce Allen. 

 

Either way, this all comes down to Allen trying to "go for it" with a team and resources that make such a strategy nonsensical. 

[Est.1974]

On 31/03/2018 at 10:12 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 I personally agree with you that they aren't that close.  But trading for a 34 year old QB coupled with just about every beat guy saying when they talk to their sources with the FO they are told they think they are really close...makes me think they indeed believe they are close

 

Whilst it's difficult to argue against the notion that a trade for a 34 year old QB is a clear win now move, I'm really not that convinced our FO see it that way. I don't think Doug was joking in Smiths introductory press conference when he said that Smith could play until he was 40. They don't see Smith as the key within a 2 year window. Rightly or wrongly, I believe they see him as our starter for 4/5 years plus.

[Est.1974]

2 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

The problem is what kind of bold move could happen. While people keep saying Bruce is just being cheap, the fact is we don't have much cap to work with. Sure, we could still fit in a Hankins (depending on the price tag). But we're already up against the cap in 2019, and signing Hankins, or anyone else,  makes that even more of a challenge. For as much as it seems obvious to me that Bruce puts saving his job as the priority over what is best for his team, he also isn't dumb enough to save it fro one year and then create a catastrophe next.

 

It makes me wonder, if there is to be some kind of dramatic move to "go for it" in 2018, if that might not be a trade of future draft picks. That would make more sense, in the vein of what's best for Bruce Allen. 

 

Either way, this all comes down to Allen trying to "go for it" with a team and resources that make such a strategy nonsensical. 

 

Agree on Hankins. Based on Suh getting 14mil, not sure Bruce would even consider getting a Hankins contract onto our books right now. I'm thinking we try to circle back around Logan on the cheap at half the price pre draft. 

 

Gruden said he would like to be aggressive in the draft. I could see 2019 picks being traded. The principle of 2019 mid round comp picks being stashed makes me suspicious that our 2019 2nd and or 3rd rounder could fly out the door.

 

An unlikely scenario of Barkley slipping out the top 6, or following on from the failed attempt last year to jump back into the first, maybe this time with more ammunition we go again. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

40 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Whilst it's difficult to argue against the notion that a trade for a 34 year old QB is a clear win now move, I'm really not that convinced our FO see it that way. I don't think Doug was joking in Smiths introductory press conference when he said that Smith could play until he was 40. They don't see Smith as the key within a 2 year window. Rightly or wrongly, I believe they see him as our starter for 4/5 years plus.

 

I think they see him as a starter for 3 years, tops. If he's able to perform past that, great, but I'm not thinking they're relying on him doing so. Especially with a new CBA coming up in 3 years...Smith should keep the Skins competitive, I don't think Allen or Snyder could stomach languishing in the 4-12/5-11 abyss for the next 2-3 years like we experienced between 2009 to 2014. They probably are thinking the team stays competitive and, hey, with a few breaks here and there, you never know...one playoff season with at least one playoff win would generate a lot of good will for a year.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

The problem is what kind of bold move could happen. While people keep saying Bruce is just being cheap, the fact is we don't have much cap to work with. Sure, we could still fit in a Hankins (depending on the price tag). But we're already up against the cap in 2019, and signing Hankins, or anyone else,  makes that even more of a challenge. For as much as it seems obvious to me that Bruce puts saving his job as the priority over what is best for his team, he also isn't dumb enough to save it fro one year and then create a catastrophe next.

 

It makes me wonder, if there is to be some kind of dramatic move to "go for it" in 2018, if that might not be a trade of future draft picks. That would make more sense, in the vein of what's best for Bruce Allen. 

 

Either way, this all comes down to Allen trying to "go for it" with a team and resources that make such a strategy nonsensical. 

 

I was talking bold in general. It's not like hey he typically is a risk taker but hey lets see it again in 2018.   This isn't Bruce's first rodeo.  We are going on year #9 as you know.  Yes, I am aware of the cap.  And this off season, and I said so in the FA thread multiple times....I don't care if they sign Hankins and then call it day.  Great to me if so.  By the way, Bruce/Jay if anything have telegraphed more signings are indeed coming -- versus them sitting on that money and carrying it over to 2019.  So I don't think you landed on what they might be doing as for worrying about the 2019 cap.  But who knows, will see.  

 

I defended Bruce as for being cheap -- he's not cheap.  They spend against the cap most of the time.  Bruce mitigates risk though by spreading out the signings over multiple players versus one or two big ones like the Vikings just did.  I don't personally like that approach especially as to how this roster is constructed.   It's more bold to sign Calais Campbell and another guy versus 6 guys.   And beyond, I described bold by moving up and down the draft, trades, the whole drill.  The Alex Smith move was bold.  I don't like the trade but it was certainly bold.   But being really bold and smart was trading Kirk last year when they apparently knew he'd be gone this year.  That would have been bolder -- get rid of him without a big player in hand to replace him.  And by and large, Bruce isn't bold or at best average as a risk taker.   I guess McNabb and RG3 were his other moments.

 

Howie Roseman has Bradford in house but traded multiple times in the draft to land a guy who wasn't at the time considered a sure thing.  Then unloaded Bradford for a bounty and recouped capital.  He traded with Baltimore and Miami and got good players cheap.  Now, Seattle.  Roseman is a wheeler dealer.  And he is in our division.   I just don't get the sense that Bruce can compete with that with the lets spend up to the cap with bargain basement "deal" FAs and see what happens. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Whilst it's difficult to argue against the notion that a trade for a 34 year old QB is a clear win now move, I'm really not that convinced our FO see it that way. I don't think Doug was joking in Smiths introductory press conference when he said that Smith could play until he was 40. They don't see Smith as the key within a 2 year window. Rightly or wrongly, I believe they see him as our starter for 4/5 years plus.

 

I don't talk to Doug, Jay, FO people off the record but beat guys do.  It's rare for the beat guys to all get the same story no matter who they talk to but its pretty much a variation of this -- the team you saw against the Raiders, Chiefs, that's what this team is really -- its a special team that can go all the way if they have better luck this year with injuries.

 

And this point even gets bounced back related to FA -- they don't think they need much because they have one of the best rosters ALREADY in the league.  Even the radio guys have echoed this, Hoffman who talked to a bunch of guys at the senior bowl, combine, etc echoed yeah they think they are really really good right now.